The Supreme Court has declared that the right to walk is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution, holding that citizens are entitled to safe and demarcated footpaths and this right takes precedence over the movement of motorised vehicles.
The ruling came in a motor accident compensation case arising from the tragic death of a five-year-old boy who was crushed by a tanker while walking to school with his father. The Court noted that the accident occurred on a road that lacked both a footpath and a pedestrian crossing. The Court found that the High Court had erred in reducing the compensation awarded to the deceased child’s parents. Recalculating the compensation on the basis of its recent precedent concerning the death of a minor child, the Supreme Court enhanced the compensation from ₹4.7 lakh to ₹11,44,628, directing payment within two months.
The Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed that the Constitution’s guarantee of free movement under Article 19(1)(d) must first be understood as protecting the fundamental right to walk. The Court held:
“
“The primary right of movement under Article 19(1)(d) is the Fundamental Right to Walk, a right that precedes the right to move on wheels.”
Observing that Indian cities and towns have increasingly prioritised vehicles over pedestrians, the Court remarked that walkers have effectively been pushed aside and treated as a nuisance on roads dominated by motor transport. It said this approach must change and formally declared the existence of a constitutional right to walk on demarcated footpaths.
Footpaths a Constitutional Obligation
The Court held that the right to walk carries with it a corresponding duty upon public authorities. It ruled that where a road exists, authorities must ensure the existence and maintenance of safe, demarcated footpaths for pedestrians. The duty bearers, according to the Court, include urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities and even panchayats.
The Bench further clarified that the right to walk on footpaths is not merely aspirational but enforceable.
“
“If a road exists, there is a duty to ensure that there are demarcated and well-maintained footpaths for walkers.”
Calls for Dedicated Legislation
The Court observed that despite the fundamental nature of the right, India presently lacks a statutory framework specifically recognising and protecting pedestrian rights.
Drawing parallels with legislations such as the Right to Education Act, National Food Security Act and Right to Information Act, the Bench noted that Parliament has enacted laws to operationalise various constitutional rights but has not done so for the right to walk.
The Court therefore called for a comprehensive legal framework that would:
• Recognise and protect the right to walk;
• Identify public authorities responsible for ensuring pedestrian infrastructure;
• Provide remedies for violations;
• Establish a dedicated regulatory body to oversee implementation and enforcement.
Accordingly, it directed that copies of the judgment be sent to the Ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, and Road Transport and Highways, as well as the Law Commission of India, for consideration of an appropriate legislative framework.
The Court observed that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is fundamentally a legislation centred on vehicles rather than pedestrians. While acknowledging that traffic regulations impose certain duties on drivers towards pedestrians, the Bench held that the statute neither recognises the fundamental right to walk nor prioritises pedestrian infrastructure over motorised transport.
Operative Directions
In this case, the Court declared:
• The right to walk is a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution;
• The right includes access to safe and demarcated footpaths;
• These rights have priority over the movement of motorised vehicles;
• Public authorities are under a legal duty to create and maintain pedestrian infrastructure;
• Violation of pedestrian rights can give rise to constitutional and legal remedies independent of claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Court also directed that the matter be renumbered as “Re: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath”, indicating that the larger issue of pedestrian rights will continue to remain under judicial consideration.
